OK: so, based on doing a bunch of calibration plots, mutual information plots, and two-way scatter plots to compare candidates, this is what I have.
Candidate 11 is the best choice. 7 and 34 are my second choices, though 19 also looks pretty good.
Holly gives the most information, she’s the best predictor overalll, followed by Ziqual. Amy is literally useless. Colleen and Linestra are equivalent. Holly and Ziqual both agree on candidate 11, so I’ll choose them.
Interestingly, some choosers like to rank clusters of individuals at exactly the same value, and it isn’t clear why. None of our current candidates fall into those weird clusters, so maybe its historical?
Also, lots of the numbers end in .7, I guess the faeries just love the number 7. I think there’s at least three stats going on, and each predictor is seeing some function of the stats, since many of the heatmaps look like a discrete grid.
OK: so, based on doing a bunch of calibration plots, mutual information plots, and two-way scatter plots to compare candidates, this is what I have.
Candidate 11 is the best choice. 7 and 34 are my second choices, though 19 also looks pretty good.
Holly gives the most information, she’s the best predictor overalll, followed by Ziqual. Amy is literally useless. Colleen and Linestra are equivalent. Holly and Ziqual both agree on candidate 11, so I’ll choose them.
Interestingly, some choosers like to rank clusters of individuals at exactly the same value, and it isn’t clear why. None of our current candidates fall into those weird clusters, so maybe its historical?
Also, lots of the numbers end in .7, I guess the faeries just love the number 7. I think there’s at least three stats going on, and each predictor is seeing some function of the stats, since many of the heatmaps look like a discrete grid.